Moderators

P. Breathnach

demonspawn wrote: »

... You don't possess any of the qualities I would normally associate with a forum moderator

What are those qualities?

especially a forum that can be as potentially explosive as a politics forum.

Explosive? Not in my considerable experience of the politics forum. I suggest that you peep into politics.ie and make a comparison.

I think you need to step down tbh. Post all you want, but you shouldn't be a mod on that particular forum section.

I have been infracted by Scofflaw ( a decision that I thought a little harsh, and told him so); I have disagreed with some of Scofflaw's moderating calls, but that is not proof that he has been wrong, just that he and I see some things differently; in a recent kerfuffle, conducted by PM, about another moderator's views, I found Scofflaw to be very fair and helpful, and obviously very anxious to bring about the must just outcome. It might also be noted that Scofflaw is more available than the other mods, and without him around there might not a moderator available when a difficulty arises.

And if Scofflaw were to quit, who might there be among the gang who would be suited to the task?

Overheal

demonspawn wrote: »

What difference does it make where you posted it? The fact is you clearly stated here that you think CTers are nutters and you're the category mod of Soc. I quoted what you said here on CT btw, I think they have a right to know.

I think you misunderstand the role of the Category Moderator per se. For Instance if you look at Scofflaw's ID Card there, he Mods Soc (The Category), The Mods within the Category, and Specifically Moderates Politics.

Unless theres a problem with a Soc Mod, or there is something pressing, like a spambot or a troll running amok, the Category Mod does not get particularly involved. It's not like you'd expect him to actively peruse all of the 50 or so forums directly under him. In Politics however he is a mod like any mod.

You could also say US Politics is nuts, and we're all a bit nuts, relatively speaking. But such an opinion doesn't prevent politics moderators from moderating the forum effectively. And between some of the Corporal Punishment 'castrate the rapists' soap-boxers and the Obama=Nazi-Commufascist promoters, I don't think anyone has been particularly silenced from expressing their rather unique system of beliefs, at least in so far as they respect it's a discussion board and not the place for wanton generalization and meritless accusation. But there again you have posters who probably would have been at home in Conspiracy Theorists, where there is a much lighter burden of proof when someone asks you to explain your rationale behind thinking the president is a Marxist.

Some of the US contributors in the US Politics subsection probably don't have an opinion on FF I guess.

I'm baffled and mesmerized at their ability to stay in power. Very different sphere of politics, to be sure.

demonspawn

sceptre wrote: »

To be blunt about it, what you're doing with that generally screams "pissed off user throwing plop in every avenue possible". Usually people use the pram/toys analogy to describe such behaviour but the poo-flinging analogy seems more appropriate to me in this case. I suggest you're better off making your case rather than (presumably) some sort of mob-rousing but it's your nickel to use wisely or less wisely I guess.

My intention wasn't to stir the s**t per se, but to illustrate my point that perhaps Scofflaw isn't suited to moderate the Soc forum if he so can so easily insult an entire section of the forums of which he's in charge of. It's simply a conflict of interest that I feel needs to be addressed.

My name is URL

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's the reason I'm not a mod of CT, and don't post in CT - I wouldn't have the necessary patience. I'm not sure why that would prevent me from treating a complaint from CT fairly, since it's unlikely a poster would be asking me to judge whether their view of the Moon landings was true or not - I only need to see whether they were being disruptive, or the mod heavy-handed, or whatever the case may be about. I'm unlikely even to know whether they post as a conspiracy theorist or a sceptic.

Neither I, nor anyone else, can be perfectly disinterested in every topic that might come up in a forum, let alone in all the Soc forums. The question is whether it affects moderation, and for cases where one feels that has happened, there is a Dispute Resolution Procedure in which you can first side-step me, and then appeal over my head.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Fair enough, I don't know how you do things behind the scenes, and don't think I've ever had any correspondence with you in your role as Cmod. I just think the original comment I quoted was harsh, and the type generalization about a large group of members which any Cmod should avoid making publicly regardless of it being a personally held opinion

Overheal

demonspawn wrote: »

My intention wasn't to stir the s**t per se, but to illustrate my point that perhaps Scofflaw isn't suited to moderate the Soc forum if he so can so easily insult an entire section of the forums of which he's in charge of. It's simply a conflict of interest that I feel needs to be addressed.

Understandable, but in my opinion it's one forum in a category of 50+, the Cat Mod needs to get involved in CT once in a blue moon and only when a) A post is reported and CT mods are offline b) Someone protests and action taken by a CT Mod (via PM)

And even then you can go ahead and look at Help Desk and the things people object to: it's fair to say that you can see how someone got banned/infracted/etc. without ever needing to understand the topic or agree with the poster. Because usually they're doing something obviously unwise like derailing a thread to make a scene "You can ban me if you want you neofascist" (which is against almost every forum's charter, save for feedback and the help desk) or insulting another user as part of their discussion "you're a fcuking retard if you think a socket AM3 Processor will fit on a P55 Motherboard", etc.

Valmont

Yes, Scofflaw is annoying but he does argue reasonably and I very much enjoy when he and donegalfella go head to head in an argument. He infracts the unruly posters with competency and that's all there is to it as far I'm concerned. I'm surprised there is such a big fuss over this.

sceptre

demonspawn wrote: »

My intention wasn't to stir the s**t per se, but to illustrate my point that perhaps Scofflaw isn't suited to moderate the Soc forum if he so can so easily insult an entire section of the forums of which he's in charge of. It's simply a conflict of interest that I feel needs to be addressed.

Well unfortunately, posting it in the forum there is simply pot-stirring. Discussing it here may or may not be (this is Feedback so it isn't unless it's intended to be so and it's reasonable to assume it's not) but posting it there certainly is. Doesn't affect me a jot but makes your point look far more like poo-flinging, which tends to make people assume that it's the tactic you've moved to. Which in turn makes your position look, well, far less sympathetic to anyone looking. But as I said, it's your nickel.

Overheal wrote: »

You could also say US Politics is nuts

It is. Certainly at times. I've said it to many of the people who've PMed me in the past few years over one thing or another in the forum. They tend to agree (I hate to generalise but it's usually their view, not typically meant disparagingly by the way). But then to them, Irish politics (as you've correctly implied) is just a bit nuts too. Some of the contributors to US Politics can be a bit nuts too - but they're our nuts and many of them make the forum what it is. Nuts can be pretty compelling (sez he who's watching Geoffrey Rush play Peter Sellers on the telly at the moment while I'm supposed to be writing 1500 words for someone who hoped to get them eight hours ago - Sellers was a certifiable nut, part of the reason he was so compelling to watch)

demonspawn

Ok, I think the main point is being diluted somewhat. My argument is that Scofflaw is heavy handed when moderating certain posts and certain posters while nesf will let some things slide as long as the bulk of the post generally contributes to the thread.

Case in point is this thread in EU subsection that was locked completely because of one post at the end that had nothing to do with the original thread. A reasonable mod would have simply given a card/warning and let the thread continue. As it is now, there are two threads on the EU subsection. That doesn't strike you as slightly odd?

Scofflaw, all I ask is that you step back a bit while in mod mode and only intervene when a thread or poster becomes out of hand or when they are actually reported by a non-mod poster. I don't think that an unreasonable request.

Edit: It's a right pain in the arse trying to make a point with quotes and threads from the politics section as I have to log out and back in to even see that forum. As such, I'm going to leave this discussion as I think I've made my point as best as I's able to.

I still think it was unfair to ban me for a week for posting a video in EU that was simply demonstrating my views in an earlier post. I included a very clear warning as to the graphic content of the video and my post was still completely deleted. This is what I'm talking about really.

Edit: I've just realized I completely hijacked kboc's thread. Sorry man.

sceptre

demonspawn wrote: »

Case in point is this thread in EU subsection that was locked completely because of one post at the end that had nothing to do with the original thread. A reasonable mod would have simply given a card/warning and let the thread continue. As it is now, there are two threads on the EU subsection. That doesn't strike you as slightly odd?

If memory vaguely serves, this particular locking has already been discussed on this thread somewhere.

However, what you're highlighting is a thread that hasn't been posted on in a year, brought back as a zombie thread by a post that had little more than a tangential relationship to the topic at hand (and what's obviously a post about general immigration than anything else, especially checking the particular member's other posts on other forums). Zombie threads revitalised after a year by posts with little content tend to be locked. Locking that thread was bang-on.

Scofflaw, all I ask is that you step back a bit while in mod mode and only intervene when a thread or poster becomes out of hand or when they are actually reported by a non-mod poster. I don't think that an unreasonable request.

Moderators stepping in only when posts are reported is not going to happen. Moderators tend to act in mod-mode only when forum members step over the line or are veering towards it in any case. No-one's going to wait until hell breaks loose before acting. There are other effectively non-moderated forum sites on the Internet, some of them discuss Politics and current affairs but the hell breaks loose requirement isn't something we tend to do here. What you're requesting is about as likely to happen as a request not to be moderated by a particular moderator.

Mahatma coat

Valmont wrote: »

Yes, Scofflaw is annoying but he does argue reasonably and I very much enjoy when he and donegalfella go head to head in an argument. He infracts the unruly posters with competency and that's all there is to it as far I'm concerned. I'm surprised there is such a big fuss over this.

NO, yer wrong, his personal opinion often shows, and his downright rudeness towards anyone He Considers to Be CT is disgusting.

Its no way for a Moderator to behave, some of the anti CT Jibes have been Very Nasty, and I have even reported a few of them, if he cant say it in a civilised manner then he has no business trying to keep the rest of the posters in line.

oscarBravo

ReginaII wrote: »

Telling another poster his post, or parts thereof, is "crap" is not only unhelpful, but also is not an argument. Shame on you.

It is his feedback, giving his opinion. It may not be what you want to hear, but such language from you is not worthy of a reply, as using such language debases your contribution.

Courtesy costs nothing. And your lack of it shames you.

I'm not even a little bit ashamed of not having any patience for people who waste moderators' and admins' time with non-feedback posts in the Feedback forum.

If you've got a constructive suggestion as to how we can run this website better, feel free to offer it. If you've got a specific complaint against a specific moderator action, follow the dispute resolution procedure.

I've got better things to do than argue with passive-aggressive sock puppets.

Scofflaw

demonspawn wrote: »

Ok, I think the main point is being diluted somewhat. My argument is that Scofflaw is heavy handed when moderating certain posts and certain posters while nesf will let some things slide as long as the bulk of the post generally contributes to the thread.

Case in point is this thread in EU subsection that was locked completely because of one post at the end that had nothing to do with the original thread. A reasonable mod would have simply given a card/warning and let the thread continue. As it is now, there are two threads on the EU subsection. That doesn't strike you as slightly odd?

There is, as sceptre has pointed out, a general rule about not resurrecting very old threads. In this case, in addition, the post that resurrected it was barely relevant in any case. And the reason there are only two threads in the EU subsection at the moment is because nothing exciting is happening with the EU - from an Irish perspective - except what gets discussed in the Economy forum.

demonspawn wrote: »

Scofflaw, all I ask is that you step back a bit while in mod mode and only intervene when a thread or poster becomes out of hand or when they are actually reported by a non-mod poster. I don't think that an unreasonable request.

That isn't going to happen.

demonspawn wrote: »

Edit: It's a right pain in the arse trying to make a point with quotes and threads from the politics section as I have to log out and back in to even see that forum. As such, I'm going to leave this discussion as I think I've made my point as best as I's able to.

I still think it was unfair to ban me for a week for posting a video in EU that was simply demonstrating my views in an earlier post. I included a very clear warning as to the graphic content of the video and my post was still completely deleted.

And I'm afraid I still think it was entirely fair. I'd warned you before about the sort of NWO stuff that was in the video, we'd had a discussion about it, and I had made the position quite clear.

I'm going to repeat what I said then - Politics is Politics, and CT is CT. And yes, I draw a very strong line between the two. It's often quite hard enough to get a reasonable discussion going on political matters like Europe without a load of daft stuff about the NWO and the Fourth Reich (the same goes for climate change, the UN etc). There are other discussion sites where the two mingle quite seamlessly, but on boards there's a whole forum for conspiracy theory discussions, and they belong there, not spread out everywhere else.

I'm aware that there's an argument that if a sufficiently large number of people believe something to be a issue - like Obama's birth cert, or that 9/11 was an inside job - then it's an issue. My answer to that is the fact that people believe patently absurd things is always an issue in politics, but the patently absurd things themselves don't get to be discussed as if they had validity.

demonspawn wrote:

This is what I'm talking about really.

That's been fairly obvious all along, but the question is why you decided not to use - or even try - the normal dispute resolution procedure to object to it.

regards,
Scofflaw

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Which is to say that I shouldn't post something inflammatory like that even as "just a poster", for exactly the same reasons that other posters shouldn't do it.

I accept that, and I'll try harder in future to avoid that kind of inflammatory remark.

cordially,
Scofflaw

djpbarry

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Hmm. I see what you’re saying (and I don’t necessarily disagree), but the distinction can be difficult to make.

For example, I am of the opinion that Greenpeace are, in general, nutters. I’m not crazy about Friends of the Earth either. Now, it is quite possible/likely that at least one poster in the S&EI forum has some sort of affiliation with either one (or both) of these organisations and may well feel personally insulted were I to make my feelings known in said forum. Does that mean I (and all other posters) should keep my opinions on these organisations to myself? I don’t think so, because it would almost certainly stifle meaningful and worthwhile discussion. As long I do not let my opinions of these organisations and their supporters cloud my judgement when it comes to moderation, then I don’t see the problem.

I think it’s also worth pointing out (particularly to those who may not have been posting on boards for very long) that the most insightful posts in any given forum are often contributed by the moderators of that forum (myself excluded, of course). I’ve been posting on boards for about four years now and over that time, I’ve learned a great deal from the likes of Scofflaw, nesf, oscarBravo and bonkey (in particular).... hell, I’ll even throw donegalfella in there – I disagree with a lot of his arguments, but he certainly makes me think (I think The Corinthian also deserves an honourable mention). If moderators are prevented from contributing to their respective fora (or even restricted to some degree), then boards will be a whole lot poorer for it.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

AckwelFoley

I think its not what you say, it but how you say it. -

"I think Sinn Fein as a party are the scum of the earth, their supporters are either bitter old farts united by their hate for england, or 17 - 22 year olds that are just out of college listening to too many "ra" songs"

"Sinn Fein are a political party with no economic agend. Their support is received due to their political stance on the north and their local politicans that work in local communities. They have a far left wing agenda that isnt practical or feasable on a national level, in addition to the fact that they still dont wholly denounce terrorist activity among many areas of nationalism, they're not a political party i and 97% of the electorate could vote for"

Both of the above statements say pretty much the same thing. The former is more likely to bait a hostile response.

djpbarry

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Sure, but the problem is that posters will often interpret the former and the latter as being one and the same.

For example (and I accept that this is not quite the same thing), I happened to be in Coventry recently, where I made the mistake of informing one of the locals that I was not massively impressed with their town. Now, I certainly did not remark upon the town's inhabitants, but as far as this particular individual was concerned, I had essentially labelled him and all his townsfolk as the scum of the earth.

I've noticed similarly overly-sensitive individuals on this website take great offence on behalf of an organisation to which they are affiliated, or some similar connection. I accept what you are saying above, but even when the greatest care is taken to not personalise the discussion, some individuals will still be personally offended by the opinions of others and demand that action be taken.

Then of course, there are those on this site who seem to occupy their time complaining about moderators in general...

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw

djpbarry wrote: »

Sure, but the problem is that posters will often interpret the former and the latter as being one and the same.

For example (and I accept that this is not quite the same thing), I happened to be in Coventry recently, where I made the mistake of informing one of the locals that I was not massively impressed with their town. Now, I certainly did not remark upon the town's inhabitants, but as far as this particular individual was concerned, I had essentially labelled him and all his townsfolk as the scum of the earth.

I've noticed similarly overly-sensitive individuals on this website take great offence on behalf of an organisation to which they are affiliated, or some similar connection. I accept what you are saying above, but even when the greatest care is taken to not personalise the discussion, some individuals will still be personally offended by the opinions of others and demand that action be taken.

I have to agree with that - I was going to point out that donegalfella's argument actually left me with the ability to say "libertarianism combines the maximum of fantasy with the minimum of empathy", and I can't help but feel he would take offence at that.

I can't see that it's possible to state a negative opinion about an organisation, philosophy, place, or whatever without offending those who support it or otherwise feel attachment to it - and contrariwise, it's clearly possible to be very rude to someone you know has an attachment to something by being rude about that something. In fact, most of what I've said about libertarianism has been said about libertarianism - the philosophy - and I'm pretty certain it has been found offensive.

I appreciate snyper's point, but it seems a shame to completely rule out the ability to be pithy just in case we cause offence to somebody by being pithy. Political correctness gone mad, to coin a phrase.

cordially,
Scofflaw

My name is URL

It's possible to be pithy and show a negative opinion on something without it being meant as an insult.

tbh

My name is URL wrote: »

It's possible to be pithy and show a negative opinion on something without it being meant as an insult.

but is it possible to be pith and show a negative opinion on something without it being taken as an insult?

your move, url.

My name is URL

tbh wrote: »

but is it possible to be pith and show a negative opinion on something without it being taken as an insult?

your move, url.

Nobody should take somebody else's negative opinion as an insult, once it isn't purposely intended to be one. The comment made last night sounded as if it was intended as an insult.

Scofflaw said earlier that he accepted it was inflammatory, and I appreciate his honesty for that.

I'm in no way trying to say that people shouldn't express a negative opinion towards whatever subject is being discussed, it just shouldn't be done at a cost of alienating or belittling an entire forum and its posters. I'd say the same about the religious forums, and have done in the past. It's possible to show your opinion on an issue without attacking those with an opposing view

Scofflaw

My name is URL wrote: »

Nobody should take somebody else's negative opinion as an insult, once it isn't purposely intended to be one. The comment made last night sounded as if it was intended as an insult.

Scofflaw said earlier that he accepted it was inflammatory, and I appreciate his honesty for that.

I'm in no way trying to say that people shouldn't express a negative opinion towards whatever subject is being discussed, it just shouldn't be done at a cost of alienating or belittling and entire forum and its posters. I'd say the same about the religious forums, and have done in the past. It's possible to show your opinion on an issue without attacking those with an opposing view

Let's take the phrase "libertarianism combines the maximum of fantasy with the minimum of empathy" as an example - is that insulting, or not? Is a poster justified in saying "hey! he's just described me as a fantasist with no empathy", or would one say to them "it's a pithy generalisation - it's not intended to describe any particular person".

cordially,
Scofflaw

My name is URL

Scofflaw wrote: »

Let's take the phrase "libertarianism combines the maximum of fantasy with the minimum of empathy" as an example - is that insulting, or not? Is a poster justified in saying "hey! he's just described me as a fantasist with no empathy", or would one say to them "it's a pithy generalisation - it's not intended to describe any particular person".

cordially,
Scofflaw

That's an opinion on a particular set of ideals.. not those who hold said ideals. If you called those holding those ideals no good pinko liberals it might be seen as insulting. Anyway, you didn't describe conspiracy theorists in a way which could be taken up as anything other than an insult towards them.. you even stated that it was in fact an insult

Lenny Lovett

tbh wrote: »

fb, legend that he is, has seven pages of infractions. The latest of which was issued two days ago. Guess who issued it? You'll kick yourself! Bantams last ban- guess which forum? Guess which mod? I also hardly need to point out that fb is not a mod, and Donegalfella is.

How many infractions does one have to get to get a ban? I've been threatened in the past with a lifetime ban but only had one infraction...

tbh

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

How many infractions does one have to get to get a ban? I've been threatened in the past with a lifetime ban but only had one infraction...

what was the forum you mod on again? edit: to answer your question (and hopefully you'll answer mine!) you can get a lifetime ban without any infractions at all.

Scofflaw

My name is URL wrote: »

That's an opinion on a particular set of ideals.. not those who hold said ideals. If you called those holding those ideals no good pinko liberals it might be seen as insulting. Anyway, you didn't describe conspiracy theorists in a way which could be taken up as anything other than an insult towards them.. you even stated that it was in fact an insult

Well, yes, it was, and I don't have any difficulty saying I was out of line in saying it.

However, how would you stop someone being offended by the statement above - or by the statement "conspiracy theories are just paranoid fantasies"?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Lenny Lovett

tbh wrote: »

what was the forum you mod on again? edit: to answer your question (and hopefully you'll answer mine!) you can get a lifetime ban without any infractions at all.

I've never had a problem answering your questions so less of the smart arse stuff! It's BBC Radio 2 message boards.

So regarding your answer: you can ban someone for life even though they have no infractions yet someone else can have seven pages of infractions and no such action taken... Can you explain how that works please?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.